DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “adhesive part” (from claims 2-3 and 12-13) must be shown or the feature canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show hanging protrusion 102b as described in paragraph 00161 of the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters not mentioned in the description: 182a in Fig. 6 and 1851 in Figs. 8-9.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b), are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraphs 0010 and 0020 refer to a “trip tray” rather than a “drip tray.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-8 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2 and 12 recite the limitation “an adhesive part located at one end.” This language is indefinite. At one end of what is the adhesive part located? Claims 3-8 are rejected based on their dependence to claim 2, and claims 13-15 are rejected based on their dependence to claim 12.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the other end of the drip tray” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the trip tray” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 13-15 are rejected based on their dependence to claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-9 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeyama (US 2012/0327617 A1) in view of Nakayama (US 2013/0178087 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Maeyama discloses an electronic device (display device 50), comprising:
a case of a metal material (metal frame 54);
a circuit board (circuit board 56) located on a surface of the case (see paragraph 0025);
a cable connector (connector 68) located on the circuit board (see paragraph 0027 and Figs. 2-3); and
a flexible cable (connector cable 64) having an end portion inserted into the cable connector to be connected to another component (see paragraph 0032 and Figs. 2-3), the flexible cable comprising:
a connection part having a signal line located therein (flat cable 66); and
a terminal part having an electrode located at each of both end portions of the connection part to be connected to the signal line (inherent in any functional cable).
Maeyama lacks a specific teaching that a drip tray is located on a surface of the flexible
cable’s connection part.
Nakayama discloses a cable (cable 5) having an end portion inserted into a cable connector (connector 2; see paragraph 0034 and Fig. 3). Nakayama further discloses a drip tray (drip-proof member 6) provided on the cable to prevent liquid droplets on the cable from reaching the connector (see paragraph 0035).
Maeyama and Nakayama are considered to be analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to modify the device taught by Maeyama to include a drip tray located on one surface of the connection part. Doing so would prevent water droplets generated by condensation from running down the cable and entering the connector (see Nakayama, paragraph 0002).
Regarding claim 2, Maeyama in view of Nakayama teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Nakayama further discloses that its drip tray comprises:
a cylinder part located at one end (7) to be attached to the cable (see paragraph 0037); and
a gutter (barb portion 8) extending from the cylinder part (7) to be concavely bent (see paragraph 0038 and Figs. 3-8 and 10-11).
Nakayama’s cylinder part 7 is structurally similar to the claimed “adhesive part” in that it
is attached to the cable and has a concavely bent gutter extending out therefrom. Nakayama however, does not explicitly disclose that its cylinder part 7 is attached to the cable via an adhesive.
Maeyama teaches the use of water-resistant adhesive to attach a water absorbing member (110) to a frame (62; see paragraph 0036).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a water-resistant adhesive to attach Nakayama’s cylinder part 7 to the cable in order to arrive at the claimed “adhesive part.” Doing so would provide a strong, water-resistant attachment between the cylinder part and the cable.
Regarding claim 3, Maeyama in view of Nakayama teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 as stated above. Nakayama further teaches that its gutter comprises:
a first folding part bent in a direction spaced apart from the adhesive part (see annotated Fig. 5 below); and
a second folding part bent at the first folding part to form a U-shaped gutter with the first folding part (see annotated Fig. 5 below).
Nakayama does not explicitly disclose forming a V-shaped gutter. Instead, the gutter of
Nakayama bends gradually upward in order to achieve its concave U-shape.
It has been held that a mere change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to form the gutter in a V-shape in order to simplify the manufacturing process, as a simple sharp bend would be easier to manufacture than a smooth curve.
PNG
media_image1.png
387
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Maeyama in view of Nakayama teaches all of the limitations of
claim 3 as stated above. Nakayama does not explicitly state that an angle between the first folding part and the second folding part is twice greater than that formed between the first folding part and the flexible cable. However, as can be seen in Fig. 5, an angle between the first folding part and the second folding part is greater than an angle formed between the first folding part and the cable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make an angle between the first folding part and the second folding part twice greater than that formed between the first folding part and the flexible cable, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 5, Maeyama in view of Nakayama teaches all of the limitations of
claim 2 as stated above. Maeyama in view of Nakayama further teaches the electronic device of claim 2, wherein the terminal part comprises:
a first terminal part located at a lower end portion of the flexible cable (Maeyama: part of connector cable 64 that connects to connector 70; see Fig. 3; Nakayama: part of cable 5 that connects to connector 2; see Fig. 3); and
a second terminal part located at an upper end portion of the flexible cable (Maeyama: part of connector cable 64 that connects to connector 68),
wherein the gutter (Nakayama: 8) has a shape protruding toward the first terminal part (Nakayama: see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Maeyama in view of Nakayama teaches all of the limitations of
claim 5 as stated above. Maeyama in view of Nakayama further teaches the electronic device of claim 5, wherein the drip tray is located adjacent to the first terminal part (Nakayama: see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Maeyama in view of Nakayama teaches all of the limitations of
claim 6 as stated above. Maeyama in view of Nakayama further teaches the electronic device of claim 6, wherein one surface of the connection part faces the case (Maeyama: see Fig. 3 showing the left side of flat cable 66 facing metal frame 54).
Regarding claim 8, Maeyama in view of Nakayama teaches all of the limitations of
claim 7 as stated above. Nakayama lacks a specific teaching that the other end of its drip tray is in contact with a case.
Maeyama teaches positioning a water absorbing member (110) and a counter member (112) on opposite sides the flexible cable (64) in order to fill a gap between a board cover (58) and a mold frame (62). The water absorbing member (110) contacts the mold frame (62) and the counter member (112) contacts the board cover (58), thus preventing water from running down between the flexible cable and the mold frame and between the flexible cable and the board cover (see paragraph 0036).
Given this configuration, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to position an end of the drip tray to be in contact with the case so that there is no space between the case and the drip tray for water to penetrate.
Regarding claim 9, Maeyama in view of Nakayama teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Nakayama further teaches that its drip tray is waterproof and suggests that it has at least some amount of rigidity (see paragraph 0038 and Figs. 7A-B). Drip-proof member 6 is designed to collect water droplets in barb portion 8, therefore it must 1) be somewhat impermeable to water and 2) have at least enough rigidity to not collapse while holding that collected water.
Nakayama states that the material used to form drip-proof member 6 is not limited (see paragraph 0039). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to form the drip tray from a waterproof and rigid material since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 11, Maeyama discloses a flexible cable (64), comprising:
a connection part having a signal line located therein (66); and
a terminal part located at each of both end portions of the connection part and having an electrode connected to the signal line (inherent in any functional cable).
Maeyama lacks a specific teaching that a drip tray is located on a surface of the flexible
cable’s connection part.
Nakayama discloses a cable (5) having an end portion inserted into a cable connector (2; see paragraph 0034 and Fig. 3). Nakayama further discloses a drip tray (6) provided on the cable to prevent liquid droplets on the cable from reaching the connector (see paragraph 0035).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to modify the device taught by Maeyama to include a drip tray located on one surface of the connection part. Doing so would prevent water droplets generated by condensation from running down the cable and entering the connector (see Nakayama, paragraph 0002).
Regarding claim 12, Maeyama in view of Nakayama teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 as stated above. Nakayama further discloses that its drip tray comprises:
a cylinder part located at one end (7) to be attached to the cable (see paragraph 0037); and
a gutter (8) extending from the cylinder part (7) to be concavely bent (see paragraph 0038 and Figs. 3-8 and 10-11).
Nakayama’s cylinder part 7 is structurally similar to the claimed “adhesive part” in that it
is attached to the cable and has a concavely bent gutter extending out therefrom. Nakayama however, does not explicitly disclose that its cylinder part 7 is attached to the cable via an adhesive.
Maeyama teaches the use of water-resistant adhesive to attach a water absorbing member (110) to a frame (62; see paragraph 0036).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a water-resistant adhesive to attach Nakayama’s cylinder part 7 to the cable in order to arrive at the claimed “adhesive part.” Doing so would provide a strong, water-resistant attachment between the cylinder part and the cable.
Regarding claim 13, Maeyama in view of Nakayama teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 as stated above. Nakayama further teaches that its gutter comprises:
a first folding part bent in a direction spaced apart from the adhesive part (see annotated Fig. 5 above); and
a second folding part bent at the first folding part to form a U-shaped gutter with the first folding part (see annotated Fig. 5 above).
Nakayama does not explicitly disclose forming a V-shaped gutter. Instead, the gutter of Nakayama bends gradually upward in order to achieve its concave U-shape.
It has been held that a mere change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to form the gutter in a V-shape in order to simplify the manufacturing process, as a simple sharp bend would be easier to manufacture than a smooth curve.
Regarding claim 14, Maeyama in view of Nakayama teaches all of the limitations of
claim 13 as stated above. Nakayama does not explicitly state that an angle between the first folding part and the second folding part is twice greater than that formed between the first folding part and the flexible cable. However, as can be seen in Fig. 5, an angle between the first folding part and the second folding part is greater than an angle formed between the first folding part and the cable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make an angle between the first folding part and the second folding part twice greater than that formed between the first folding part and the flexible cable, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 15, Maeyama in view of Nakayama teaches all of the limitations of
claim 12 as stated above. Maeyama in view of Nakayama further teaches the flexible cable of claim 12, wherein the terminal part comprises:
a first terminal part located at a lower end portion of the flexible cable (Maeyama: part of connector cable 64 that connects to connector 70; see Fig. 3; Nakayama: part of cable 5 that connects to connector 2; see Fig. 3); and
a second terminal part located at an upper end portion of the flexible cable (Maeyama: part of connector cable 64 that connects to connector 68),
wherein the gutter (Nakayama: 8) has a shape protruding toward the first terminal part (Nakayama: see Fig. 3).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeyama in view of Nakayama as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yokota (WO 2013/073101 A1).
Maeyama in view of Nakayama teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Maeyama in view of Nakayama lacks a specific teaching that the device further comprises a drip cover attached adjacent to the terminal part of the other surface of the flexible cable to cover the terminal part, wherein the drip cover covers the cable connector when the flexible cable couples to the cable connector.
Yokota discloses an electronic device (electronic device 3400) comprising a flexible cable (flexible cable 3402) having a terminal part (end portion of 3402) connected to a cable connector (connector 3404). Yokota teaches attaching a drip cover (laminated sheet 3100) adjacent to the terminal part of a surface of the flexible cable (3402) to cover the terminal part and the cable connector (see Figs. 56 and 57).
Yokota is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to include a drip cover attached adjacent to the terminal part of the other surface of the flexible cable to cover the terminal part, wherein the drip cover covers the cable connector when the flexible cable couples to the cable connector. Doing so would further protect the cable connector from any water that manages to flow around the drip tray.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSS TERRY MULARSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-0284. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Imani Hayman can be reached at (571)270-5528. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/R.T.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2841 /IMANI N HAYMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights